Radiation

[MBDK]

Uhmmm...they ARE both aligned with the magnetic poles already.

Am I reading this correctly. Tim has suggested we have to realign the magnetic axis with respect to the van Allen belts to obtain that correct orbital path of the craft through the van Allen belts? Is this what Tim is claiming?

Tim is so confused, I don't believe he has any idea about what he is suggesting.  He is also obviously flummoxed by the SIMPLE flux/shielding problem I gave him.  I would suggest he might understand it better if I provided him with a relevant graph, but you know tim and graphs appear to be arch enemies.  Regardless, I have an early morning appointment, and I must bid adieu until later.  Cheers.

[timfinch]

If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

First of all, if you think the amended graph you posted with your version of the Apollo flight path added added any relevance regarding the amount of protons aluminum can shield you are VERY wrong there, also.  The statement you made above is equally as wrong, which shows how little you really understand about shielding and its relation to flux.  Example, how much of a 2x10EE8 proton per square centimeter per second flux, with energies between .1 MeV and 1 MeV, would 1 mm of aluminum stop?

What was the thumb rule Brauenig used?  40% of the proton energy for a captured/Shielded proton is released in the form of secondary radiation.  Did I get that right.  Do you want to use that thumb rule?

[MBDK]

If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

First of all, if you think the amended graph you posted with your version of the Apollo flight path added added any relevance regarding the amount of protons aluminum can shield you are VERY wrong there, also.  The statement you made above is equally as wrong, which shows how little you really understand about shielding and its relation to flux.  Example, how much of a 2x10EE8 proton per square centimeter per second flux, with energies between .1 MeV and 1 MeV, would 1 mm of aluminum stop?

What was the thumb rule Brauenig used?  40% of the proton energy for a captured/Shielded proton is released in the form of secondary radiation.  Did I get that right.  Do you want to use that thumb rule?

Use whatever you feel you need to, but I want you to answer my question, as posted.  I am off to bed now, so you have time to work on it.

[timfinch]

Man up.  Produce data to support the VAB transit can be conducted at less than .666 mgy.  If you can't then the Hoax is proven.  If the glove doesn't fit then you must quit and desist with the charade.  Explain why the newer better shielded version of the apollo could not perform the prestidigitation.  Explain why sixties technologies cannot be repeated.  Stop the distraction and produce something tangible.  This is getting embarrassing.

[timfinch]

If it as you would have use believe, that 8 gm/cm^3 aluminum shielding can shield 90% of proton flux and assuming in doing so no secondary radiation is created then using Braeunig's own totals of 179.67 rem for both transits would still yield 17.97 rem.  Make that work without magic.

First of all, if you think the amended graph you posted with your version of the Apollo flight path added added any relevance regarding the amount of protons aluminum can shield you are VERY wrong there, also.  The statement you made above is equally as wrong, which shows how little you really understand about shielding and its relation to flux.  Example, how much of a 2x10EE8 proton per square centimeter per second flux, with energies between .1 MeV and 1 MeV, would 1 mm of aluminum stop?

What was the thumb rule Brauenig used?  40% of the proton energy for a captured/Shielded proton is released in the form of secondary radiation.  Did I get that right.  Do you want to use that thumb rule?

Use whatever you feel you need to, but I want you to answer my question, as posted.  I am off to bed now, so you have time to work on it.

My answer is 3

[Luke Pemberton]

This is getting embarrassing.

Says the man that misread a log graph.

[Luke Pemberton]

Time for a recap:

1.  Tim claimed that CRaTER data did no fall below 0.22 as he failed to read a log graph.
2.  Tim claimed the moon was prohibitively radioactive as he confused radiation with radioactivity.
3.  Tim did not understand the correlation between solar cycle and GCR.
4.  Tim tried to use data for cycle 24 when Apollo occurred in cycle 20.
5.  Tim presented average data and claimed this was a minimum and maximum, but did not understand the data was in fact
     modulated about average values.
6.  Tim does not understand that an average has values less than the average and greater than the average.
7.  Tim included SPEs in a plot and claimed the tail of the data increased, despite there being no record of SPEs in the Apollo flights.
8.  Tim presented a child's game as proof of the missions, cited the data, despite his own source telling him that the CM was
     shielded.
9.  Tim is incorrectly interpreting the CM path by presenting graph of speed versus position.
10. Tim has shown he does not understand the flux energy profiles of particles in the VABs.
11. Tim does not differentiate between radiation background and radiation hazard.
12. Tim does not understand how to apply stopping power using when given surface density.

I could add, but these are the main points.

[Luke Pemberton]

My answer is 3

Your flippancy does not hide your inability. The question was quantified using widely accepted parameters and the answer to the question is readily computed using information available on the internet. You clearly do not understand how to apply stopping power using when given surface density..

The question was not a simple litmus test, but rather to determine your willingness to engage in a meaningful debate, and your ability to provide the correct computations using the relevant information. These two criteria are not mutually exclusive.

[timfinch]

You people go to great lengths to distract and obfuscate.  It simply delays the inevitable.  I will make this simple.  The attached graph depicts the AE-8 Max Electron flux of the VAB.  The Apollo flight path is delineated.  The Orion EFT flight path is insignificantly different.  It was an inclination of 28.8 while Apollo 11's was 28.65.  If you can show and justify a different path than the one delineated please do so or accept this one as the defacto standard.  Let us find common ground so we can move toward a resolution that we can all agree on.    I can easily be silenced.  Show me something real.

[timfinch]

Once we have all come to the understanding that this is indeed the path the apollo took through the VAB and the path is almost identical to the path of the Orion  EFT then we can extrapolate out from the empirical data of the 2014 data set.  It will be obvious to even the disinterested that the VAB transit comes at a higher price than the apollo missions could afford to pay.

[Zakalwe]

Time for a recap:

1.  Tim claimed that CRaTER data did no fall below 0.22 as he failed to read a log graph.
2.  Tim claimed the moon was prohibitively radioactive as he confused radiation with radioactivity.
3.  Tim did not understand the correlation between solar cycle and GCR.
4.  Tim tried to use data for cycle 24 when Apollo occurred in cycle 20.
5.  Tim presented average data and claimed this was a minimum and maximum, but did not understand the data was in fact
     modulated about average values.
6.  Tim does not understand that an average has values less than the average and greater than the average.
7.  Tim included SPEs in a plot and claimed the tail of the data increased, despite there being no record of SPEs in the Apollo flights.
8.  Tim presented a child's game as proof of the missions, cited the data, despite his own source telling him that the CM was
     shielded.
9.  Tim is incorrectly interpreting the CM path by presenting graph of speed versus position.
10. Tim has shown he does not understand the flux energy profiles of particles in the VABs.
11. Tim does not differentiate between radiation background and radiation hazard.
12. Tim does not understand how to apply stopping power using when given surface density.

I could add, but these are the main points.

13. Tim is unable to interpret 2D representations of 3D movements.

[Abaddon]

14. Tim is unable to read maps.

[Abaddon]

15. Tim is unable to grok youtube videos.

[bknight]

You have been lied to.  Here is the actual path through the VAB.  One must be aware the the center of the VAB is not aligned with the earths equatorial plane rather it is aligned with the magnetic equator which is offset 11.5 degrees.  This results in the lunar orbit being 17.15 degrees into the magnetic equatorial plane.  The only region of the VAB not encountered in a VAB transit is the 2*10^8 flux at the very heart.  It's path is through the 1*10^8 region (half as much).

You've been deceived by some HB, that is not the path as it is not a straight line but it is curved in 2-D as well as curved in 3-D pulling away from the VARB.  Bob's 2-D rendering is far more accurate than this.

[bknight]

Always remember and never forget that the lowest GCR background radiation (exclusive of any Solar radiation you could anally extract) was 1.4 mgy/day.  You have to somehow reduce VAB transit radiation to something less than .08 mgy/day  and lunar operation to zero to arrive at the .22 mgy/day of apollo 11.  I am going to have to get more popcorn.

You still don't have a cluw with math or reading comprehension.  AVERAGE